Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (9) TMI 1491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction contemplated against the petitioners and its Directors/Partners/Proprietors under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 or Rules issued thereunder - If the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notices, they ought to have filed objections before the second respondent and it is for the second respondent to consider the objections and verify as to whether the decision of the PIC to exclude fish meal and fish oil from the scope of DEPB scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy, is in accordance with law. Before approaching the authority concerned, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned show cause notices. It is well settled that the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices are not mainta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Policy administered by the respondents, the petitioners claimed duty credit under the Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) under the policy. On 24-3-2009, the Policy Interpretation Committee, which is an advisory body to the first respondent, placed interpretation on relevant DEPB entry to hold that fish oil and fish meal are Value Added products and are to be covered by the said DEPB entry. Consequently, after November, 2009, the petitioners were denied DEPB benefit. It is further case of the petitioners that, between 2009 and 2014, petitioners made representations to the Minister of Commerce and Industries, Government of India, and to the first respondent, through their Trade Association i.e., Indian Fish Meal and Fish Oil Exporters Associati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Act . 4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri B.N. Gururaj, Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that impugned action of the respondents is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and are in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The notices vide Annexures-C, C1 and C2 seek to give retrospective effect to the interpretation placed by the PIC on the disputed entry. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture of fish oil and fish meal from 2007. There was no demand for recovery of DEPB benefit to (sic) there is no demand for payment. Absurdly notice is issued to recover for the amount for past period which is impermissible and impugned notices issued are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e writ petitions. 7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture of fish oil, fish meal and export of the same from India. On 24-3-2009, the PIC decided to exclude fish meal and fish oil from the scope of DEPB scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy. The first representation by the Trade body to the Minister of Commerce and Industries to restore DEPB benefit was made on 28-10-2009. On 19-1-2010, the demand notices were issued by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade for recovery of DEPB credit. On 25-1-2010, representation was made by the Trade Body to the Chairman, MPEDA, to intercede on their behalf and in spite of repe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... meal and fish oil from the scope of DEPB scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy, is in accordance with law. Before approaching the authority concerned, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned show cause notices. 10. It is well settled that the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices are not maintainable and it is for the petitioners to file objections and show cause to the second respondent as to how they are not liable to pay the duty credit. 11. Admittedly, except the representation dated 21-10-2014, vide Annexure-D, petitioners have not filed objections to the impugned show cause notices. Therefore, the present writ petitions are not maintainable. 12. This Court, while issuing notice to the respo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates